Art and racism, hypocrisy or a right decisión
Background
Is there racism,
contemptuous treatment, discrimination where the black dwarf Eskimo words are
used on the labels of art? Is it offensive if it is named for the people who
were the subject of an artistic work in painting, sculpture or another form? Is
it politically correct to avoid such terms as "offensive"?
The Rijksmuseum
Amsterdam amended 2016-300 book titles to avoid conflicting words considered as
'black', 'Dwarf', 'Moor' or 'Moslem'. Especially if the works are derived from
the colonial era, "as part of a project that aims to avert words (up to 23)
as black, Kaffir, Indian and other derogatory considered. The plan is not easy,
because the search for alternatives requires finding precise appellations until
mid-2016.
There are titles like
Black Young lady (1895-1922), a painting by the Dutch artist Simon Maris
(1873-1935) easy to adapt to the current language.
black girl
'(1895-1922), a painting by the Dutch artist Simon Maris.
The language is
treacherous and sometimes things not mean they say. Public institutions should
take special care in the use of some terms that may offend sensitivities. For
example, avoid words like so widespread Eskimo or jíbaro. "For them Eskimo
is pejorative, means raw meat eater. Inuit use, which means personality, and
it's like themselves ".
In other famous
centers the answer is varied. The British Museum says that "no plans to
change the titles of any of its parts at this time." London's National
Gallery, on the other hand, says "constantly checking the labels and
descriptions" of his works. Also notes that make "the necessary changes
in response to different reasons." The National Portrait Gallery in
London, describes as "very interesting what the Rijksmuseum, but can not
be applied to our portraits, which often carry the model name".
Times change, change
languages, some words remain and others are relegated. For those who are the
meaning changes because of new circumstances. The word inquisition over 500
years ago would have made you tremble with fear any of us, now that word evokes
a criminal and criminal organization, whose real purpose was to expropriate the
wealth of honest and productive. A variation of the Sicilian Mafia or the
Japanese Yakuza. Other terms, such as the bull of excommunication might also
have caused heart attacks by fear, now only a document sounds tacky, full of
crap and nonsense words. As ridiculous as if we announce in a document the
deaths of pets king of a remote island in the Pacific Ocean.
When words are worth more than art
Similarly, the
derogatory meaning or attributed to the words to be removed discriminator has
changed and is not typical of the era. 150 years ago, who mentioned the word
black perhaps it was exploitative colonialist considered members of this
community as a commodity that could be bought or sold, and his mind could
identify contempt, a feeling of superiority and other negative aspects. Today,
the black word only makes us think of people from a different ethnic group,
nothing more.
In terms of artistic
expression, a person educated to understand and appreciate art with sensitivity
and judgment to review the intrinsic value of the work of art, does not care if
a white person appears, black, oriental in a portrait; he just appreciates the
artistic treatment, light and shadow, proportion. It is judged the artwork
itself. Similarly, Elvis Presley 150 years ago never would has dared to perform
publicly with black slaves; 50 years Presley fed black music to create his
music style who liked black and white.
The intention to
change the words sounds more like hypocrisy, a false politeness, spurious concessions
for lobbyists with political interests, the submission of artistic interest and
intention to mundane interests.
In a work of art, if
the portrait belongs to a black, a person with artistic culture will not
belittle the work if it is of good quality. If the portrait is of a white
person it is poor, who have genuine interest in art not overestimate this work.
Art has its own place
The black artist Kerry
Marshall (I do not think it politically incorrect to speak so) paints portraits
of his people, and aesthetically not pass the tests that puts a message of
vindication. Even in the titles of his works the word "black"
appears. Are he disoriented or confused? Does he do not know that word
"offend" their people? No, he presents its visual, artistic proposal;
not literary, linguistic or verbal.
Jame Kerry Marshall,
born in 1955, Alabama; United States
Kerry Marshall Jame.
Lost boys AKA Black Johnny, 1993. Courtesy of the artist. Jack Shainman
Gallery, NY, and Koplin Del Rio, CA
For portraits and
other jobs where blacks or other human groups appear, if the artist had had in
mind the derogatory sense of the word "black" or have associated with
their models with inferior people would not have been willing to grasp
nobility, delicate features, contrast of light and shadow, and create the
beauty that we admire in these portraits. If Simon Maris had thought as
colonialist or operator, he might have obtained a grotesque vision and not the
beautiful portrait is observed.
At the time that these
artworks were created, there were good white men and very wicked, it still
appears today; but there are some good black and other very evil with his own
people. So what's the difference? Art is over the meaning of words.
References
Kerry James Marshall:
pintura y otras cosas
La corrección política
entra en el museo, 8 d enero del 2016
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Nota: solo los miembros de este blog pueden publicar comentarios.